Watsabaugh & Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
DENMAN, Circuit Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, moved the District Court for a new trial after judgment had been entered in their suit under the so-called Heard Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270.
On appeal here their “Statement of Points Intended to be Relied Upon” confined the appeal to the single claim that the District Court erred in denying the motion because the “testimony given upon the trial of this cause by its legal effect entitled them to relief which was denied to them by the judgment of the court as ordered under date of June 22, 1938, and that said testimony by its legal effect did not…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Arthur N. Olive Co., Inc. v. United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of Dan C. Marino, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1962
- United States Ex Rel. Mariana v. Piracci Construction Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1975
- United States Ex Rel. E & R Construction Co. v. Guy H. James Construction Co.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1972
- United States Ex Rel. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. H. R. Henderson & Co.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1955
- United States Ex Rel. Mobile Premix Concrete, Inc. v. Santa Fe Engineers, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1981
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.